Russia successfully tests Bulava missile -- from submerged submarine!

Without knowing the characteristics of the target it is not possible to make that claim.
"What specific military effects are you attempting to achieve? In general it is not about simply breaking things. It is about achieving a specific military purpose. Probable weapons effects were matched to the target's attributes."

Given that my last exposure to target lists was in something called 6H how would I know? I can assume that if we still have those weapons in our inventory then the targets they were designed to defeat still exist and continue to have characteristics the very large weapons were designed to defeat. And before you ask I do know what those targets were. But I shall not reveal them.
"More than anything else you have written this tells me you lack depth in the field. Why would any nation waste a precious weapon designed to destroy a hard target, on a city? What would the point be?"

You would be right were it not for the remarkable improvements in range and accuracy of SLBMs. ICBMs are nice but they are very limited in numbers. Submarines are hard to find and hard to keep track of. I am not suggesting that an enemy would unload the boat to strike silos. But not every weapon will find its way to its target. Airfields will survive or recovery fields will be discovered. Reconstituted command and control facilities will emerge as new targets. Submarines are far more likely to be available than bombers. And certainly far more likely to be available than ICBMS.

If anyone bothers to strike cities why not use cruise missiles. It isn't like a city is particularly hard or moveable. Nor is it necessarily valuable as a target.

Probably more. But what would the point be? And why would a reasonable enemy with the intention to win a war waste a precious weapon to destroy a city?

"Of course there can be winning in nuclear war just as in any war. The side that cannot believe it is the side that loses."

Do you prefer to capitulate early or upon demand? That is what you are moving towards. Positioning to win a war is the best means to avoid it. Putting one's head in the sand is the best way to lose it. But the current leaders are on the same side as this nation's enemies. So perhaps the capitulation has already occurred.

"You give yourself more credit than is due. The side that wins is the side that achieves its political objectives."

As the intelligence officer I also served as the trainer for my team. I spent a great amount of time building road to war scenarios that built upon then current events. I never believed in BOOB attacks. The bolt out of the blue that simply comes with no indications always seemed far fetched. But using moves and countermoves, sometimes actions involving an ally may put leaders in the position where they believe they may lose their use of weapons unless they use them. Or they may see a vital national interest in something that we see as less vital. Given that politics involves human beings one cannot tell what political objectives they will see as important enough to fight any war over. You ask for the impossible.

"More and more it is clear you actually know little about the field. It is not a big deal. Most people don't."

It was my job for four years. Whatever knowledge you have appears to be secondary to me. We can agree to differ. It matters little in the grand scheme of things.

 

Misterveritis You have been an excellent read, strategic warfare has always fascinated me like "WW1" in that it consumes so much effort it would take all resources directed toward that effort to continue to execute it. And because it would involve such mobilization it would be incredibly difficult to deviate from the plan otherwise the front may collapse and you will end up losing.

I guess I mean to say that Nuclear War would be fought much more like a "static defense" war, than anything else.

I've always wondered if the US is prepared at such an effort or if the leadership believes their own propaganda that if they just launch a few nukes the war is over and everyone is dead?

 

Thank you.

In my opinion strategic nuclear war, meaning we fire everything we have at an enemy who has fired or is firing everything they have at us is unlikely. I believe it is far more likely that weapons will be used in concert with the application of conventional military force. I believe a nuclear war is likely to be fought over months or possibly years. I do not believe that cities would be targets. Sometimes they would be destroyed because of the targets that are stuck within them. The capital and the Pentagon would be stuck dozens of times. Military bases would be struck if they were in a position to generate forces that could be brought to bear in the conflict.

It has been a very long time since I have given this all that much thought. I believe our real end will come with the destruction of a handful of electrical grid substations. But that is a talk for some other time.

 

Q1) Everything or partial attack?
A1) Probably partial, as you think, or combined arms, which is why the US really mantains so much forward military posture, protecting corporate interests etc, is only part of that equation.

Q2) Months or Years?
A2) If my analogy of Nuclear War to WW1 is correct it would be fought over years until the command-control structure collapses. In fact most modern wars behave this way, WW2 lasted until the command-control of Germany collapsed...etc.

Q3) Cities will be targets?
A3) Most certainly not, in WW1 you couldn't waste one battalion on something stupid, for risk of the collapse of the whole defense-in-depth. The commitment is so total that all resources must be fully committed to maximizing damage and a knock-out blow. The knock-out-blow is the ability to end projection of force and cut-off or destroy command and control.

Q4) Will cities ever be targeted?
A4) Yes I agree, sometimes due to targets within them. But maybe sometimes for the same reasons cities were targeted in WW2, military objectives can be accomplished by bombing cities whether it is interruption of supplies, decrease in economic output, ability to resupply or just general chaos and congestion caused by mass relocation, etc.

Q5) electrical grid?
A5) Shutting down the electric grid is the real danger for a modern economy exposed to EMP, especially if critical liabilities like nuclear waste cannot be controlled in absence of a functioning regional power grid. But if those critical "knock-out-blow" level problems are mitigated, then shutting down the grid is a mere wartime inconvenience. Like enforced blackouts rationing etc.

I think Nuclear War is very possible because Russia believes it is and all it takes is one willing to execute for it to be possible.

I think it would be most like WW1, WW2 had flexibility. The US engaged at their leisure, the US invaded Italy when it wanted, it pushed into the Pacific when it wanted.

Britain hid behind the Atlantic wall.

Etc.

WW1 all parties were locked into constant pressure, this pressure demanded response and equal force.

For instance all nations mobilized 100% of their available manpower so that 100% of their forces were committed at any given time, meaning none of them could be uncommitted or retired at such a rate as to retrain those forces to meet new strategic problems.

This meant a slow evolution of tactics at the unit level (not just because the top-down command inhibited it that was largely done away with by 1916) and this is what was so important about the 1918 spring offensive.

Germany having freed-up 25-33% of their manpower in the victory in the east was able to retrain those soldiers to meet the NEW demands placed upon the Western Front by the invention of Defense in Depth.

Nuclear War must demand the same condition, maximum 100% response all the time, because any less response will result in the victory of the enemy seizing the initiative and delivering a knock-out blow.

It won't be enough to fire one round or all current warheads, warheads will need to resupply new missiles built in the interim of fighting as both sides rush to regain the initiative and launch the next strike.

Russia prepared for this as you may know from your targeting days their hardened facilities are more numerous and more broad defending a larger number of civilian and industrial assets.

Whether all that decayed in the last 30 years I don't know, who knows.

But Russia is prepared more to fight a WW1 style 100% commitment type static-defense war.

The US is more prepared to wage a global conventional war and has the "Global strike initiative".

The strategies to me seem obvious.

Russia intends to deliver a knock-out blow by destroying all US-NATO command and control and engage the US-NATO complex on a global scale with proxies at the corners of the Globe.

The US expects to survive the initial attack and due to their smaller warhead stockpile, probably intends to deliver a fatal blow by invading Russia.

The US redesigned the Army Brigade structure by innovating what is called the "Stryker Brigade" which is more mobile, able to operate independently and etc., and so was highly effective against older Soviet style Brigades from WW2.

But Russia has learned and exposed in the Ukraine their knew Brigade modeled after the West, the "New Look" for the Russian Army includes a Stryker style Brigade system and is highly competitive with US/NATO forces so the conventional invasion route seems less competent.

As a whole I feel the US has been behind the 8ball on war...and has succeeded only because war is only one means to achieve political objectives.

The US is very good at achieving objectives without war, and had it been war to decide the end of the Cold War, the Soviets probably would have won, the US incapable of ending their command and control before internal revolution ended the US.

Shrugs

Counter-response?

 

I think this is childishly stupid even to discuss it like this. Nuclear war is an absurdity designed for keeping enemy in fear, while doing all kind of dirty job by regular means, including exploitation of terrorist groups for 'regime change', etc. During WWII, both Russia and Germany had ample supply of chemicals for mass destruction. Soviet army units were always followed by special chemical forces, carrying gas masks just to be ready. Luckily for both sides, neither Hitler or Stalin tried chemical weapons in the battle to the very end of the war. Why do you think that nukes are much safer and easier to use by either side? There will be no victory for anyone, if this kind of exchange would take place.

 

WW2 killed 55 million people if not more and ruined continental Europe.

But Nuclear war is unfathomable? It is only absurd to think Nuclear war cannot happen.

 

It is perfectly fine for you to hold the belief you do. It simply makes you irrelevant.

 

You are enjoying a peace time right now. This is how I am relevant. Younger generation people grew up on computer games, but this does not make their thinking and judgment more relevant, then those people who lived through WWII or, at least, know effects of radiation on living organisms.

 

English is not your primary language, is it?

 

When the fallout poison all water supplies the Russians can substitute Vodka aka Russian Water

- - - Updated - - -

Fair enough ... 160 MIRV's it is then.

 

1) Submarine launched Missile threaten cities
2) There is no "winning" a nuclear war with Russia except in the mind of someone who thinks the world as we know it can be destroyed and there still be a winner.

Are you one of those fundamentalists who looks forward to an apocalypse because you think "The Rapture" will happen.

Is that your idea of winning ? While the world gets destroyed you get whisked away because you pray to Jesus every day ?

What possible political objective can be achieved by Mutually Assured Destruction of your own country

 

The world wouldn't be destroyed I'm so tired of this myth.

Just because you saw it in a movie doesn't mean it actually happens that way.

I bet you believe all soldiers jump around the jungles like Arnold Schwarzenegger too?

MAD is a myth. Why else would the US deploy a nuclear arsenal with precision guidance?

Can you answer that?

If when the Nukes fly everything is destroyed then all you have to do is point in the general direction and say (*)(*)(*)(*) it. Am I right?

Instead the US and Russia spend huge amounts of time and effort calculating CEP and yields and accuracies and targets and what needs to be destroyed and what doesn't and etc.

You go on believing fantasies about MAD.

 

Vodka means spirit-water.

Whiskey is the Irish Gaelic words Water and Spirit.

So whiskey also means spirit water.

 

You do realize this is FORTY YEAR OLD technology don't you? The ability to launch MIRVED SLBMs submerged was something the U.S., Soviets, British, and French mastered in the 1970s.

 

Yes, you and I know this. I was posting it, not so that I could pretend like I was the guy who discovered fire, but more for the 20-somethings and 30-somethings who didn't know this and would never have known this by being "educated" in what passes for being a public "school" system.

But you raise an interesting new concern... since, by now, this is so easily done, should we worry that even countries like Bangladesh might have nuclear submarines with missiles prowling along our coasts? Hell, I'll bet there's probably YouTube videos showing people how they, too, can build their own submarines, put MIRV'd missiles on them, and become a force to be reckoned with....

 

It isn't just a matter of technology. It is also a matter of having a naval tradition and long standing infrastructure.

You know what one of the hardest things to get together to build nuclear subs is for example?

Welders. The kind of welders that can work with the high density steel used on submersibles.

 

I am not sure you are correct (I know how hard welding is ; you need to be a bloody exacting artist IMHO) ask Toshiba what the Soviets struggled with.

 

It is no fantasy ... while there may be areas in the world that would survive, if the US and Russia went to nuclear war there would not be enough left of either country to be worth living in.

Do not blame me that you have little education in science and have not put an ounce of research into the issue. The only fantasy is that somehow "life as usual" will continue in any realistic way shape or form after a nuclear war with Russia and 2) that you have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

Fear not !! Fortunately for you I care enough about the issue to have done a little work and am happy to educate you

First a few facts about todays nukes:

The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was roughly 15 Kilotons TNT equivalent. (That is 15,000 tons)

A 20 megaton warhead is 20 million tons of TNT equivalent = 1333 times the size of the bomb that hit Hiroshima.

1 megaton warhead is 67 times the size of Hiroshima.

There is all kinds of information available on the effects of a nuclear blast and I encourage you to educate yourself but this should be a good start:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/radiation.htm

OK 1 bomb 15 Megatons creates a 500 km (300 miles) long x 100 km (60 mile) wide swath of "severely contaminated" land and water. The area of "contaminated but less than severely contaminated" is obviously much greater.

Just using this info we can do some quick math. Something you are probably not good at but I am happy to help you out ... Lucky you !

500km x 100km = 50,000 square kilometers or roughly 3300 square km per megaton !

Continental US = 8 million sq km. 8 million /3300 = 2400 megatons would severely contaminate every square kilometer of the Continental US.

Russia currently has 8500 warheads in its arsenal, down from a peak of 45,000 in 1988. As you can see from the calculation above there is simply no need for that many.

Good luck living in the continental US when every square inch is "severely contaminated" by radiation.

Next time you want to open your trap and be critical of something you might first want to ensure that you at least have a little knowledge of the subject matter.

 

Land explosions, fall out material, etc affect the fall out as well as weather patterns etc. To say that 50,000 sq KM will be affected per MT is grossly in accurate especally considering the type and and construction material of the weapon as well as the more likely scenerio of multiple air bursts vs surface explosions and the intensity/compsition of radioactive debris. This is even before comparisons can be made concerning the reliability of weapons. Finally let me cut this short and end with this, Not all those estimated 8500 warheads are pointed at the US. I could go on, but maybe you should think a bit before attempting to caution others or think simple math equates to the real world.

 

I never said this. You need to upgrade your reading comprehension.

The idea that a there is such a thing as winning a nuclear war with Russia is lunacy. That was the point that you seem to have lost.

The truth is that only 1800 or so are strategically operational.

Since 500 or so would easily do the trick, did you have a point other than to prove you are hopelessly ignorant in relation to the topic ?

Do you really think the Russians have not sat down and figured out how much nuclear firepower it takes to wipe out the US ?

 

A couple of observations:

1) Multi megaton nuclear weapons are pretty rare. The most common nuclear warheads are generally 100 to 300 kilotons or so.

2) Most nuclear weapons probably would not function correctly or effectively miss their targets anyway. The U.S. deployed an entire class of nuclear weapons aboard their first nuclear missile submarines and later found out that fully 75% would not detonate. There is no reason to think the Soviet weapons are any more reliable.

If 500 nuclear weapons were launched I would say conservatively that only about 350 of them would detonate on about 100 distinct targets (probably almost none of them cities).

 

An article by Thad Beversdorf proves how the conflict Washington engineered with Russia, long predates the conflict that Washington has orchestrated in Ukraine. He has it going back to the Clinton years, which I well believe because the break up of Yugoslavia and the lies about Serbia that enabled Clinton to enter the Kosovo war, was really an attack on Russia...and Putin well knew it. Also two weeks after Lavrov told the U.S. in 2009 that Ukraine was a no-no, Washington was making plans on how to take it over.

This article gives proof that neoconservatives such as Kristol and Kagan were the ones who wrote policy papers defining Iraq, Syria, and Russia as threats, and that it was all based on lies, and now these same neoconservative ideologues are focusing on “destroying Russia economically to disable it militarily in an effort to prevent a Sino-Russian alliance.” He believes this attempt to fortify Washington’s power over the world has the earmarks of World War III.


"...Fighting a war for what one believes in is unfortunate and brutal but fighting for lies and deceit to an end that benefits only those telling the lies is a type of ugliness most of us cannot comprehend. It is only in the world ruled by sociopaths where such things can happen..."

http://www.firstrebuttal.com/2014/1...lesson-of-history-that-no-one-wants-to-admit/

 

too bad Russia is pulling back from Lugansk/Donetsk.



http://www.ibtimes.com/cash-strappe...an-separatist-regions-donetsk-luhansk-1745350

- - - Updated - - -

sorry buddy, but it looks like you're not gonna get your WW3.

 

Some Americans here simply cannot read. Let's stick to the topic. More appropriated article from ibtimes, straight to the point. This was the second test. The Sineva intercontinental missile.

Russia Test-Fires Intercontinental Missile From Nuclear Submarine

http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-test-fires-intercontinental-missile-nuclear-submarine-1719169

Get some perspective. Russians have already freaked Washington D.C policy makers out so much so that they've already requested more than 1 trillion USD to upgrade the U.S nuclear arsenal.

Nuclear War: Russia Shocks US With Tactical Weapons, Pentagon Retaliates

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/5728...r-weapons-war-vladimir-putin.org#.VIfVPdhxnIU

 

Any place within range is threatened by submarine launched ballistic missiles.
Any place within ranged is threatened by cruise missiles.
Any place within range is threatened by intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Any place within range is threatened by bombers.
Any place within range is threatened by a man with a rifle.

A wise individual can discern that each tool has its purpose.

Perhaps you should question your assumptions.

The world as we knew it was destroyed when Barack Hussein Obama became our president and chose to become a tyrant. Is there a winner? The One on the golf course seems to believe so.

This is an interesting, but weak, ploy. I cannot recall asking, "How many battalions does Jesus command?"

Two things. There are an infinite number of political objectives that can be achieved by winning a nuclear, or for that matter, any war.
And second, you have many unstated assumptions, among them is that in a nuclear war the world will somehow be destroyed. That is not the case.